In an extraordinary act of defiance, more than 500 law firms have come together to push back against what they describe as a dangerous assault on the American legal system—led not by a hostile foreign power, but by a former U.S. president.
The show of solidarity arrived in the form of a forceful court brief, filed in a Washington, D.C. federal court, in support of Perkins Coie—a firm singled out by Donald Trump via an executive order aimed at punishing its diversity policies and prior legal work for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. The brief wasn’t signed lightly. Lawyers know the stakes. This isn’t just politics—it’s about survival in an environment where representing the “wrong” client can draw federal fire.
The list of signatories includes names like Arnold & Porter, Crowell & Moring, Fenwick & West, and Freshfields US. Notably absent: many of the country’s biggest, most corporate-leaning firms—perhaps calculating the cost of defiance against a figure known for turning vendetta into policy.
“Although we do not take this step lightly,” the brief declares, “our abiding commitment to preserving the integrity of the American legal system leaves us no choice but to join together.” That statement echoes a broader fear: that Trump’s use of executive power to punish firms based on their clients, employees, or politics could mark the beginning of something far more chilling.
Trump’s executive orders have already targeted five firms. Three—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—are fighting back in court. One, Paul Weiss, cut a deal that resulted in the directive being dropped. Another, Covington & Burling, has yet to sue. Three more—Milbank, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Skadden Arps—quietly reached “understanding agreements” with the former president without ever being formally targeted.
The strategy from Trump’s corner is clear: cancel federal contracts, restrict lawyers’ access to federal buildings, strip security clearances, and make an example of any firm that crosses him. Some of the targeted firms include those that employed prosecutors involved in investigations against Trump or supported workplace diversity initiatives—policies some on the far right claim amount to reverse discrimination.
The backlash from the legal world has been sharp. Law professors, small practices, bar associations, and thousands of attorneys have publicly condemned the executive orders. The brief supporting Perkins Coie was spearheaded by Donald Verrilli, former U.S. solicitor general, now at Munger, Tolles & Olson—a firm itself suing the Trump administration over multiple policies.
Judge Beryl Howell, overseeing the Perkins Coie case, has already blocked key parts of Trump’s directive, calling it an “extreme, dangerous and unprecedented” attack on constitutional protections like free speech and due process. Howell warned that if the order were allowed to stand, it would undermine the very foundations of the legal system.
Meanwhile, some firms that struck deals with Trump—including commitments to tens of millions in pro bono work for projects coordinated with the White House—have defended those arrangements as nonpartisan, even as critics see them as capitulations dressed in corporate spin.
As the case continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the legal community, long known for its cautious distance from political controversy, is now staring down a choice between complicity and confrontation. More than 500 firms have already made theirs.
